17. The Met Office science strategy 2010-2015
outlines the "top-level science strategy" for the Met
Office, responding to the increasing demand for "seamless
prediction systems across all timescales" for the atmosphere,
oceans and land surface.[57]
The strategy focuses the Met Office research agenda around four
major science challenges:

i. forecasting hazardous weather from hours to
decades;

ii. water cycle and quantitative precipitation
forecasting on all scales;

iii. monthly to decadal prediction in a changing
climate; and

iv. sensitivity of the Earth system to human
activities.

The strategy proposes a new research structure within
the Met Office, which aims to deliver efficiencies and set in
place "mechanisms for greater integration and innovation
in the science base". It also advocates "a more strategic
approach to partnerships [...], delivery of the necessary infrastructure
for research and services, improved processes for staff recruitment
and development, and better methods for communicating and disseminating
[Met Office] science".[58]
These themes are discussed throughout this chapter.

18. Broadly speaking, the science strategy has
been very well received across the meteorology community.[59]
However, Research Councils UK (RCUK) commented that it "would
have appreciated a greater opportunity to be consulted on [the
strategy's] development".[60]
Professor Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief Scientist, was surprised
by this.[61] She explained
that there was consultation through the Met Office Science Advisory
Committee (MOSAC),[62]
and that the director of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science
(NCAS)who was the "most obvious" representative
from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)was
a member of MOSAC.[63]
Professor Slingo was confident that the level of consultation
was appropriate for the job of developing a strategy that was
suitable for the Met Office, as an organisation that has a specific
"public task" to fulfil.[64]
John Hirst, Met Office Chief Executive, added that he would follow-up
with RCUK its concerns about particular areas of the strategy
it would have liked to be consulted on.[65]

19. RCUK also expressed concerns that:

The strategy contains a series of "recommendations"
rather than a description of what will be done. In this respect
it has something of the feel of an internal recommendation to
the Met Office board rather than a set of goals towards which
the Met Office is committed. Implementation is only addressed
at a very high level.[66]

A formal implementation plan was in fact later published
by the Met Office, during the course of our inquiry.[67]
Professor Slingo acknowledged that the role of partners, such
as NERC, would be "critical" in the implementation phase.[68]
The importance of collaboration and partnership is discussed in
greater detail later in this report (paragraphs 60-72).

THE NEW RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
STRUCTURE

20. The science strategy "recognises the
unique position of the Met Office in having world-class weather
forecasting and climate prediction in one place".[69]
While the Met Office considered it "essential" in the
short-term to maintain clearly identifiable programmes in both
weather and climate research, it was proposed in the science strategy
that integration across these programmes could and should be improved.
This would be achieved by:

Bringing together all research
and development under a single Director of Science;

Forming a new directorate in Foundation Science;
and

Establishing a programme of integrating and innovating
activities.[70]

The lack of integration across weather and climate
research was noted in the past as a key weakness that "did
not readily facilitate common developments" across these
areas.[71] Professor
John Pyle, Chair of the Hadley Centre Science Review Group and
a member of MOSAC, told us that the new structure looked like
a "good model but only time will tell".[72]
The National Oceanography Centre considered that the new structure
may also "foster a closer research partnership" with
the broader research community in the UK and abroad.[73]
Professor Pyle particularly welcomed the establishment of the
new Foundation Science directorate, which he considered might
"ease some of the tensions in developing a single Unified
Model [...] for both weather forecasting and climate research".[74]

OVERSIGHT OF MET OFFICE SCIENCE

21. MOSAC was set up 15 years ago to oversee
Met Office science, following the change to Trading Fund status
(see paragraph 4).[75]
We took evidence from the Chair of MOSAC, Professor Sir Brian
Hoskins, who is also the atmospheric scientist on the Met Office
Board.[76] We questioned
Sir Brian about whether there was a potential conflict of interest
between his role as Chair of MOSAC and as a member of the Met
Office board, particularly given that, as the Chair of MOSAC,
he is required to report to the Met Office Board.[77]
In response, he told us that the current arrangement provided
a "very good conduit" from the science to the board,
and that as "a pretty independent sort of guy" he felt
"no conflict whatsoever".[78]

22. Sir Brian explained that he was responsible
for selecting the other members of MOSAC, in consultation with
the Met Office.[79] Its
membership comprises top atmospheric scientists in the UK and
the equivalent of chief scientists from a number of Met Services
around the world.[80]
Sir Brian told us that while this may look as if MOSAC was "parading
[its] programme in front of [its] competitors", he personally
ensured that MOSAC got valuable input from all its members.[81]

23. In the past, MOSAC's remit covered only weather
prediction.[82] Under
the new science strategy, the remit has been expanded to include
both weather and climate science.[83]
The strategy also states that existing Science Review Groups (SRGs)
for reviewing specific areas will "continue for as long as
required by the relevant Customer Groups" and that the Chairs
of those groups would also be members of MOSAC.[84]
The Government said in its memorandum that:

In considering changes to the remit and terms of
reference of MOSAC we would encourage the Met Office to reflect
on the independence of the Committee and the Principles on Scientific
Advice to Government, noting the revised Code of Practice for
Science Advisory Committees (CoPSAC) to be published in the Autumn.
This identifies best practice guidelines and provides practical
advice on the operation of Science Advisory Committees.[85]

We were not clear, however, from the conversation
we had with the Chairs of MOSAC and the Hadley Centre SRG, whether
they adhere to the principles set out in CoPSAC, although Sir
Brian did inform us that they "act in a very independent
manner".[86] We
are also unclear as to whether either group's terms of reference
are published in the public domain as a matter of course.

24. Professor Pyle raised the question about
whether Met Office science was being "over-reviewed".
He explained that there have been a number of ad-hoc reviews recently
and in addition to being formally reviewed by MOSAC, the Met Office
is also overseen by the Hadley Centre SRG. Unlike MOSAC, the Hadley
Centre SRG is not a Met Office committee; the role given to it
by DECC and Defra is to ensure that the Met Office is delivering
science that is appropriate to the needs of Government. However,
it operates in much the same way as MOSAC, with a rotating membership
of scientists from the UK and overseas. While the Hadley Centre
SRG deals with work under the climate programme, Sir Brian indicated
that the equivalent in weather was the Public Weather Service
Customer Group (PWSCG) (see paragraph 13). He added that PWSCG
representatives were present at MOSAC discussions and were sent
a copy of the MOSAC Chair's report.[87]

25. Given the move towards integrating
weather and climate science, and with the Met Office Science Advisory
Committee's (MOSAC) remit being expanded to include both areas,
we question whether it is sensible to impose additional scrutiny
by the Met Office Hadley Centre Science Review Group (SRG). We
recommend that the Met Office consult with DECC and Defra to determine
whether the Hadley Centre SRG is required in its current form.
Our view is that it would be more sensible to formally review
all science under MOSAC, whilst retaining a Hadley Centre Climate
Programme Customer Group, as described in paragraph 14, to ensure
that customer needs are being met.

26. We recommend that the Met
Office publish MOSAC's terms of reference on its website. We also
advise MOSAC to consider the Code of Practice for Science Advisory
Committees (CoPSAC) at its next meeting, specifically considering
whether MOSAC would benefit from adhering to the principles contained
within it.

Weather and climate forecasts

27. Creating weather and climate forecasts is
a complex process involving the application of science and technology
to predict future atmospheric conditions from observations.[88]
These observations are recorded around the world, from a variety
of sources (from land, at sea, in the air and from space). Each
day the Met Office receives and uses approximately half a million
observations. This includes data on temperature, pressure, wind
speed, wind direction and humidity. The process of 'data assimilation'
then uses these observations to provide a "best estimate
of the current state of the atmosphere".[89]
How this state evolves over time is then calculated using a computer
model, producing an estimate of the state of the atmosphere at
some point in the futurea 'forecast'.[90]
Forecasting involves making billions of mathematical calculations;
therefore powerful supercomputers are required in order to carry
out these calculations as quickly as possible.[91]

OBSERVATIONS

28. The importance of observational data in modelling
future weather and climate is clear.[92]
Indeed, the Government told us that it:

recognises that the robustness of Met Office models
is contingent on the accuracy and adequacy of supporting observational
data. Observations directly input to models and to model development
(through enhancing our scientific understanding) and are the only
means of verifying model outputs.[93]

However, the UK generates and owns less than four
per cent of the observational data on which it relies to deliver
the Public Weather Service; this value drops to less than one
per cent if satellite data are included.[94]
As a result "international collaboration is essential to
provide the observations on which the Met Office depends".[95]
This is a subject we will return to in paragraph 68.

29. In addition to the vast quantities of data
available from international sources, there is also a network
of volunteer observers in the UK. Stephen Burt, a freelance science
writer and Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, told us
that the voluntary observing network has declined by approximately
50 per cent: in 1975, there were 6,220 rainfall observing sites
in the UK; by 2010, the figure had dropped to 3,214.[96]
He attributed this decline, in part, to "very little ongoing
support from the Met Office".[97]
We understand, however, that the Met Office is now beginning to
address this concern. During our visit to Exeter, Met Office officials
demonstrated the new Met Office Weather Observations Website (WOW),
which "is helping to co-ordinate the growth of the weather
observing community in the UK, by asking anyone to submit the
observations they are taking".[98]
The Met Office WOW includes guidance on setting up a weather observation
site and submitting observations online.

MODELLING

30. The Met Office uses essentially the same
"Unified Model" (UM) for modelling "across all
timescales from daily weather forecasting to centennial climate
change predictions, and for all space scales from the local to
the global".[99]
Many of the organisations we heard from regarded the Met Office's
models very highly.[100]
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)
told us that there were "extensive objective international
comparisons carried out continuously regarding the skill of global
numerical weather prediction models from the Met Office and [others].
The ECMWF and the Met Office models are in the world-leading category".[101]

31. A testament to the quality of the Met Office's
models is that the UM is licensed to other national meteorological
services for operational use. Current users include: Norway, Australia,
South Korea, South Africa, India, New Zealand and the US Air Force.[102]
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology wrote to us explaining that
it was "particularly well informed to be able to comment
on the point of model robustness, having done a deep 'due diligence'
on the Met Office and its modelling system before seeking a collaborative
arrangement".[103]
The Bureau explained that its decision was "strongly driven
by [its] assessment that the Met Office systems are state-of-the
art in modelling" and that it had "no reservations in
stating that its decision has been completely vindicated by its
first-hand experience operationally with the Unified Model over
more than two years. These are excellent models, well-conceived,
well built, and well up to the task".[104]
As a result of adopting the UM, Australian forecasts have improved.[105]
The accuracy of UK forecasts is discussed in paragraphs 45-51.

32. In addition to the clear benefit to those
countries using Met Office models, there are also considerable
benefits for the Met Office itself. For example, Professor Ed
Hill, from the National Oceanography Centre, told us that by operating
the UM in different countries, with different weather and climate
environments to our own, Met Office models "get tested in
different regimes".[106]
He added that more people using the models would allow users to
learn lessons collectively.[107]
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology indicated that feedback of
this kind "facilitate[d] model improvements that would otherwise
be beyond the focus of the Met Office".[108]
The Bureau described it as:

"one plus one equals three" territory,
where a strategic alignment of the intellectual capital of British
and Australian meteorologists in the use and development of the
UM yields added benefit in terms of improved forecasting capability
to the citizens of both nations.[109]

33. As well as looking at the use of Met Office
models by international partners, we were keen to find out more
about the extent to which the models were used by the wider meteorology
community within the UK. We heard conflicting views about this.
The Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading stated
that:

The whole suite of models used by the Met Office
is used within the University community, and particularly at the
University of Reading, in research projects. This means that the
models are subjected to a very high level of scrutiny, often in
ways unanticipated by the development teams at the Met Office.
This level of scrutiny substantially increases the robustness
of the models.[110]

However, Professor John Pyle, Chair of the Hadley
Centre SRG, told us that:

The Unified Model architecture is often difficult
to negotiate and many UK academic meteorologists employ other,
easier-to-use numerical models for specific research projects
(e.g. mesoscale modelling). The Met Office needs to consider this
seriously. I believe the intellectual exchange with the academic
community will be increasingly important for the Met Office; if
instead, UK academics use other, rival models, this will certainly
be to the detriment of the Met Office, and UK science, in the
medium and longer term. More thought needs to be given to making
their models "user friendly".[111]

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Chair of MOSAC, explained
that one of the reasons for the Met Office model not being particularly
user-friendly might be that it has historically been used mostly
for operational purposes. He added that there would be "an
overhead" associated with making it more usable by the community.[112]
John Hirst, Chief Executive of the Met Office, accepted that the
models needed to be easier to use.[113]
It was his view that collaboration on modelling had historically
been better in climate forecasts than in weather forecasts but
that the Met Office was "now working with the weather academic
community" on this issue.[114]

34. Throughout the course of our inquiry, we
heard of one collaborative computer modelling initiative that
was working particularly well. The Met Office and Natural Environment
Research Council (NERC) joint supercomputing system, "MONSooN",
allows scientists to collaborate on research into a number of
modelling issues.[115]
MONSooN has been credited with greatly improving the extent to
which the Met Office collaborates with the wider research community.[116]
For example, the National Oceanography Centre told us that MONSooN
has been used by scientists from the Met Office and NERC to analyse
and improve the common ocean modelling system, "NEMO",
which is now a "world-leading system".[117]
Professor Pyle welcomed MONSooN and stated that he would like
to see it expanded.[118]
He acknowledged, however, that this would require more money.[119]
Mr Hirst told us that the Met Office would expand MONSooN, and
was "already in discussions with NERC about the next phase".[120]

35. Met Office models are highly
regarded across the UK and around the world. It is a testament
to the Met Office that its Unified Model is licensed to other
national meteorological services. Collaboration with these international
partners helps the Met Office to further test and develop its
models and should be encouraged. Similarly, collaboration with
the wider UK meteorology community should be encouraged to stimulate
the development of Met Office models. We note that the MONSooN
project has been held up as a particularly good example, providing
a joint supercomputing system that allows scientists to collaborate
on research into modelling issues. We encourage the expansion
of MONSooN and recommend that NERC work closely with the Met Office
to develop plans for the next phase that are suitable for the
research community's needs.

SUPERCOMPUTING

36. In addition to using supercomputers to facilitate
collaborative research, they are also used for the operational
delivery of forecasts. As explained in paragraph 27, forecasting
uses powerful supercomputers, these are computers that are optimised
to make billions of mathematical calculations as quickly as possible.
The Met Office Science Strategy explained that:

The difference between operational and research computing
requirements needs to be recognised. Operational delivery requires
the appropriate capacity to deliver a suite of weather forecasts
on a 24-hour, 7-day a week basis, without interruption. Increasingly
it will also need to accommodate an operational suite of climate
predictions. Consequently, operational supercomputing needs to
be robust and under our control, and it needs a substantial partition
for preoperational development and testing. [...]

Research, on the other hand, requires access to advanced
computing capability in order to make further progress in model
resolution and complexity, data assimilation and process-based
research.[121]

37. In 2010 the Government Chief Scientific Adviser,
Professor Sir John Beddington, published a review of government's
needs for climate science advice. The review recommended that
"a step-change increase in supercomputing capacity [...]
would be required to most effectively meet the Government's key
evidence and advice needs".[122]
More recently, the House of Commons Transport Committee also stated
that benefits would be realised if an additional £10 million
funding were made available for supercomputing resources.[123]
Many of the witnesses we heard from agreed that such a step-change
in supercomputing capacity was necessary.[124]
However, Sir John recognised in his review that this step-change
would involve a four-fold increase in supercomputing costs, which
was "not currently affordable".[125]
While others also recognised affordability was an issue,[126]
the point was made that the Met Office had already "slipped
down the league table in terms of its computing resource"
and that it would be "impossible to deliver world class weather
and climate science without access to adequate computing capacity".[127]
However, we have not in the course of our inquiry assessed historical
investment in supercomputing resources. The Met Office told us
that it currently:

has developments available which have been demonstrated
in research-mode to deliver more accurate forecasts. However,
it is not possible to implement these improvements in the Met
Office's operational forecast model because of limited supercomputing
resource.[128]

In the Met Office Chief Scientist's words, "the
science is ready and waiting" and as a result, there would
be "a very rapid return" on investment in supercomputing.[129]
We asked the Met Office to explain what operational improvements
it could deliver if additional investment in supercomputing was
made. In response, it provided case study examples of how enhancements
would deliver improved advice to users, and affect their response
in severe weather.[130]
For example, intense downpours caused localised incidents of surface
water flooding in parts of Dorset on 18 August 2011, resulting
in the Fire Service dealing with over 100 incidents in a two hour
period.[131] The Met
Office told us that the short lead-time warning and low confidence
extreme rainfall alert were "very likely to have contributed
to limited preparedness".[132]
Enhanced supercomputing power "would probably have allowed
more confident warnings, better indications of possible peak rainfall
intensities, and longer lead time information on the potential
risk, to be issued".[133]
Other case studies highlighted by the Met Office included the
snowstorms in the South of England in February 2009 and the Cumbrian
floods in November 2009.[134]
In addition to improved short-range weather forecasts, increased
supercomputing capacity would also improve operational monthly
to decadal predictions and climate services.[135]

38. As well as producing case studies, the Met
Office has also calculated the socio-economic benefit delivered
by investment in supercomputing capacity. This was carried out
in 2008, "in accordance with best practice as set out in
the HM Treasury's Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central
Government".[136]
In compliance with these best practice policies, it was estimated
that "for a £50 million five year whole-life cost, net
UK socio-economic benefit totalling £0.5 billion would be
delivered through provision of enhanced weather and climate services".[137]
John Hirst, Met Office Chief Executive, told us that this ratio,
a ten to one return on investment, "still exists" today.[138]
This aggregate benefit ratio was calculated by "combining
the PWS (13:1) and climate science (6:1) ratios", suggesting
that investment in supercomputing capacity would provide greater
benefits for weather forecasting than for climate forecasting.[139]
The Government told us that "further economic benefit as
a consequence of ongoing advances in the science will be delivered
through the routine scheduled replacement of the current supercomputer
currently planned for 2015".[140]
However, the Royal Meteorological Society considered that "a
further significant investment in computing resources is required,
over and [above] the current commitments".[141]

39. The Met Office wrote to us to explain that
delivering improvements, consistent with the socio-economic benefits
outlined above, "would require a supercomputer with at least
twice the capacity of the near one petaflop[142]
facility now being implemented at the Met Office".[143]
The cost of thisincluding associated infrastructure, depreciation,
power, service and maintenance charges, and staff costs for developing
modelling infrastructurewould be £14 million per year,
over each of the next three years.[144]
This was consistent with estimates from Professor Sir Brian Hoskins,
Chair of MOSAC, and Professor John Pyle, Chair of the Hadley Centre
SRG, on the required level of investment in the future.[145]
Edward Davey MP, the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer
and Postal Affairs, acknowledged that "a very good case"
had been made for increased supercomputing capacity and that BIS
was "building a business case" for the next generation
of supercomputing capacity.[146]
He added that this was "happening with a degree of urgency".[147]
However, we later discovered that "the current timetable
sees this process taking up to 18 months".[148]

40. It is of great concern to
us that scientific advances in weather forecasting and the associated
public benefits (particular in regard to severe weather warnings)
are ready and waiting but are being held back by insufficient
supercomputing capacity. We echo the recent conclusions of the
Government Chief Scientific Adviser and others, that a step-change
in supercomputing capacity is required. We acknowledge, however,
that affordability is an issue. The Met Office has over recent
years built a good case for increased investment. However, we
have not in the course of our inquiry assessed investment in supercomputing
over recent decades. We recommend that the Met Office provide
an overview of historical investment in supercomputing resources
in its response to us. We encourage BIS to complete a formal business
case on supercomputing, however, we do not consider that this
process should take anywhere near the 18 months suggested by the
Government. In our view, the Government should finalise the business
case in the next six months.

41. Given the current economic climate, we considered
it prudent to discuss with the Met Office and other witnesses
what low-cost options there were for increasing supercomputing
capacity. The Government told us that Sir John's review recognised
"the need for greater collaboration on supercomputing resources,
including internationally, stressing that long term development
of modelling capability would likely require a European solution".[149]
However, Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Chair of MOSAC, warned us
that Japan and Korea have their supercomputing capacity now, while
there was still no sign of a European solution within the next
few years.[150] In
any case, a European solution would be more suitable for collaboration
in climate forecasting than in operational weather forecasting,
which is carried out to very tight timescales.

42. Professor Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief
Scientist, suggested that collaboration on supercomputing "has
been looked at over many years by the international community
in weather and climate science".[151]
She explained that the nature of some problems does not lend itself
to, for example, distributed computing (the use of multiple computers
communicating through a network). Professor Slingo explained that
in weather forecasting, models have to run very efficiently on
supercomputers and also gather and process huge amounts of data,
all within a very short timeframe. This requires a specific type
of machine architecture as well as a very large bandwidth to get
the data out of the machine and on to a huge data archive. Professor
Slingo added that the Met Office looks at this issue every year.[152]

43. The Met Office told us that "remote
supercomputing options, such as third party facilities, grid computing
and cloud computing, [were] not suitable at the current time".[153]
While Sir John, in his recent review, agreed that Earth system
and high-resolution models could only be run on supercomputers,
he also stated that "in a limited number of instances grid
or network computing may offer a viable and cost-effective approach,
such as for low resolution ensembles".[154]

44. Given that supercomputing
capacity for weather and climate forecasting is a recurring issue,
we recommend that the Met Office work with the Research Councils
and other partners in the UK and abroad to develop a ten-year
strategy for supercomputing resources in weather and climate.
This should include an assessment of which areas in weather and
climate research and forecasting might benefit from low-cost options
to enhance supercomputing capacity.

ASSESSING FORECAST ACCURACY

Weather

45. The meteorology community tracks collectively
the accuracy of forecasts.[155]
The Met Office told us that:

The accuracy of Met Office forecasts are evaluated
against observations on a daily basis. The PWSCG [Public Weather
Service Customer Group] specify accuracy targets for forecasts
of maximum and minimum temperatures, rain, sun, wind speed and
wind direction. In 2010/11 all targets were met. As of August
2011, on average (over a 36-month period) the percentage of forecasts
accurate to within ± 2 °C is:

87.6% of maximum temperature forecasts on the
day the forecast is issued (target for 2011/12 85%) and 78.5%
of minimum temperature forecasts (target 76.5%);

81.1% of maximum temperature forecasts on the
second day of the forecast (target 79.5%) and 71.7% of minimum
temperature forecasts (target 69.0%).[156]

The PWSCG also "routinely undertakes public
perception surveys to assess satisfaction with the forecast and
warnings service".[157]
In November 2010, it found that "nine out of ten people found
weather forecasts useful and just over three quarters found them
accurate".[158]

46. Professor Alan Thorpe, from the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), told us that
"the distance that you can predict into the future has been
advancing at about a day per decade".[159]
For example, a five-day weather forecast today is as accurate
as a three-day forecast was 20 years ago and a three-day forecast
today is as accurate as a one-day forecast was 20 years ago. The
Met Office attributed this increase in skill to "more sophisticated
atmospheric physics, higher model resolution and more comprehensive
observations, especially from meteorological satellites".[160]
Professor Thorpe explained that as a result, over the years, more
"local specificity" was available in forecasts.[161]

47. The ECMWF told us: "All global weather
prediction models are routinely evaluated by the World Meteorological
Organisation using independent and objective measures of skill".[162]
The Met Office added that "a range of metrics are used and
all show that the Met Office is consistently within the top three
centres internationally".[163]
However, similar metrics are "not yet available for longer
range forecasts" because the appropriate methodologies are
not in place and also because "verification statistics are
much more limited due to the short length of the observational
base".[164] The
Met Office explained that "the quality of its performance
against other centres is assured by including the Unified Model
(UM) in all model comparisons and in the European Seasonal to
Inter-annual Prediction (EUROSIP) ensemble of models"[165]EUROSIP
is a project that aims to strengthen collaboration on seasonal
forecasting.[166] There
is, however, a "common public perception" that the Met
Office does not provide reliable seasonal forecasts.[167]
The National Oceanography Centre (NOC) told us that this was "largely
due to sensationalist media reporting and shortcomings in how
'probability' and 'risk' are understood by non-experts".[168] These are
issues we discuss in paragraphs 52-56. The NOC added that:

Private weather forecasting companies are now often
called upon to make these seasonal predictions, suggesting that
this is an aspect of the Public Weather Service remit where the
Met Office service could be improved. The accuracy of forecasts
by these private companies needs to be carefully evaluated on
a long-term basis.[169]

48. The accuracy of independent forecasters in
comparison to the Met Office is an issue that is also of interest
to the BBC. Roger Harrabin, BBC Environment Analyst, told us that
BBC News initiated the Weather Test "to compare publicly
for the first time the accuracy of weather forecasters in the
UK."[170] The
Met Office is co-operating with this initiative.[171]
However, John Hirst, Met Office Chief Executive, pointed out that
this was "not a trivial exercise".[172]
Professor Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief Scientist, added that
particularly with seasonal forecasting, which are probabilistic
forecasts (forecasts that assign a probability to each of a number
of different outcomes in order to allow uncertainties to be quantified),
there is no right or wrong forecast and therefore a whole history
of forecasts is needed to decide the level of skill and reliability.[173]
Professor Slingo explained that the international community was
still working out how to do this in a way that makes sense.[174]

Climate

49. We were also keen to know how accurate climate
forecasts have been over the past few decades, and whether they
were improving. We note that the climate model did not accurately
predict the extent of the flattening of the temperature curve
during the last ten years.[175]
Professor Alan Thorpe, from ECMWF, told us that:

In 1990, when the scientific assessment was made,
there were real-time predictions of what the climate, subsequent
to 1990 going forward, would be. We are now in a position of having
a record of what actually happened relative to the predictions
that were made then of the climate from 1990 to the present time.
Those comparisons show that the models of the dayof course,
the models have improved since thenif anything, under-estimated
the amount of global warming that has subsequently happened. We
are able now, because we have done this climate prediction for
a number of years, to start to assess that.[176]

Professor Paul Hardaker, from the Royal Meteorological
Society, agreed that "what the early models predicted is
largely what has come to pass in terms of our observations".[177]
Mr Hirst added that there was "a difference between making
a forecast for tomorrow when you experience tomorrow very quickly"
and "going back and modelling how the climate has evolved
in history to make sure that our models replicate what actually
happened".[178]
The Royal Meteorological Society added that there was "no
more computationally complex problem in science" than simulating
the climate.[179] Despite
the difficulties in assessing climate models, both the Royal Meteorological
Society and the ECMWF considered that the Met Office was widely
acknowledged as a world-leader in climate modelling and prediction.[180]

Atmospheric dispersion

50. The Met Office uses its Numerical Atmospheric-dispersion
Modelling Environment (NAME) model to "predict how material
will be dispersed in the atmosphere and deposited on the ground".[181]
In recent years, NAME has also been used for events such as the
2005 Buncefield oil storage depot incident, the 2008 Bluetongue
outbreak over Europe, the 2010 and 2011 volcanic eruptions, and
the 2011 Fukushima nuclear incident.[182]
The Met Office told us that it was difficult to verify the accuracy
of dispersion models "because dispersion events occur infrequently
and it can be difficult to obtain reliable, quantifiable observations
of the distribution and concentration of material".[183]
This was an area of particular interest to us following our recent
report, Scientific advice and evidence in emergencies,
in which we questioned the suitability of the Met Office's dispersion
predictions in relation to volcanic ash.[184]
In response to our report, the Government told us that an independent
review of the NAME model had been commissioned by the Civil Aviation
Authority.[185] This
review concluded that NAME "represents a state of the art
dispersion model".[186]
In its submission to us, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration National Weather Service agreed, stating that "NAME
is robust, peer reviewed, and good for ash dispersion modelling".[187]
We note that the Met Office continues to work with its American
counterparts to improve collaboration during future volcanic eruptions.[188]

51. The Met Office is consistently
within the top three centres internationally in weather prediction
and is widely recognised as a world-leader in climate prediction.
However, we note that the climate model did not accurately predict
the extent of the flattening of the temperature curve during the
last ten years. We have heard that the accuracy of short-term
forecasts is easier to assess than the accuracy of longer term
forecasts and infrequent events, such as volcanic ash dispersion.
We encourage the Met Office to work with partners in the UK and
internationally on developing metrics to assess the accuracy of
longer-term forecasts of weather and climate and of forecasts
based on infrequent events.

COMMUNICATION OF FORECASTS

52. A forecast, however accurate it is, is of
little use if it is not communicated well and understood by the
customer.[189] The
National Oceanography Centre told us that most of the public perception
of forecasts is via television broadcasts.[190]
Professor Paul Hardaker, from the Royal Meteorological Society,
considered that it was the responsibility of both the forecaster
and the broadcaster to ensure that forecasts are accurately communicated.[191]
Given the inherent uncertainty in forecasting, one of the ways
in which communication could be improved would be through providing
more information about probability. Professor Brian Hoskins told
us that MOSAC has "always encouraged the Met Office to produce
more information about likelihood" but that "media pressure"
on weather forecasts meant that there was only a short period
of time to communicate forecast information.[192]
Sir Brian did not consider that there was an easy way to get this
information across in a 30 second broadcast.[193]
However, the use of the Internet and digital technology, such
as the BBC's "red button" facility, means that more
detailed forecast information could easily be made available to
those who want it.[194]

53. Professor Hardaker told us that "many
countries make much greater use of probabilistic information in
their forecasts than we do, even in their broadcasts".[195]
Sir Brian cited a recent example:

Let us take [...] the hurricane that was likely to
inundate New York. US television was showing 12 possible tracks
provided by 12 different models for the hurricane. I do not believe
that that sort of information is difficult for the public to assimilate,
and we should not underestimate the public's ability to take on
odds and make their own decisions based on those.[196]

We asked the Minister whether he considered that
the communication of such detailed information could be improved
in the UK. In response he told us that the Met Office was considering
the matter.[197] The
trade union, Prospect, confirmed that the Met Office "has
recently invested significantly in enhancing the presentation
of site-specific information on its public website".[198]
The Met Office is currently testing these changes on the beta
version of its public website.[199]
Prospect added that the Met Office "is also seeking to enhance
the presentation of probabilistic weather forecast information".[200]
The Royal Meteorological Society told us that "if the Met
Office was able to provide more information about uncertainty
in its forecasts, it may be less subject to the criticism it has
seen from time-to-time from public and media alike".[201]

54. An area where the Met Office has been particularly
heavily criticised in the recent past is in seasonal forecasting,
for example, during the bad weather that followed its 2009 prediction
of a "barbecue summer".[202]
Philip Eden, a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, told
us that predictions like this "go to the very heart of what
weather forecasts are for"; he questioned whether they were
a public service, or entertainment.[203]
Nick Baldwin, Chair of the Public Weather Service Customer Group
(PWSCG) told us that following the barbecue summer prediction,
the PWSCG was:

heavily involved in a discussion about withdrawing
the previous seasonal forecasting approach. The consultation we
undertook showed that people did not find it very useful in the
way it was presented, and that they would rather have received
a shorter-term forecast so that the three-month forecast was replaced
with a 30-day rolling forecast. A lot of work has gone on since
then with the Met Office, and over the next week or so it will
introduce a new seasonal forecasting methodology for civil contingency
communities, which includes a better explanation of the uncertainty
facing us. [...] It is important that people are organised and
have a good understanding of that forecast. We have been funding
that information and it will be released through the Cabinet Office.[204]

While it may be the case that seasonal forecasts
with an accompanying explanation of the uncertainty are more useful
for civil contingencies than, for example, the general public,
the Met Office is bound by clear rules that state that if it makes
this information available to the Government, it must also be
made available publicly.[205]
It was also suggested that seasonal forecasts were useful across
a wide range of industries, for example, insurance, power generation,
construction, agriculture, tourism and retail.[206]

55. The Met Office should continue
to produce longer term ("seasonal") forecasts as they
are useful for civil contingencies and a wide range of industries.
These forecasts should always be communicated carefully and accompanied
by explanatory notes describing the uncertainty. We recommend
that the Met Office develop a communications strategy that sets
out, for example, how it intends to enhance the ways in which
it presents probabilistic weather forecast information.

56. The Met Office should also
work closely with broadcasters, such as the BBC, to ensure that
forecasts are communicated accurately. In particular, we are keen
to see broadcasters make greater use of probabilistic information
in their weather forecasts, as is done in the United States. Broadcasters
should also make more use of digital technology to ensure that
probabilistic forecast information is available to those that
want it.

ACCESS TO DATA

57. In generating weather and climate forecasts,
the Met Office generate huge quantities of data. The Government
told us that:

The PWSCG require the Met Office to provide a meteorological
library and archive service available to anyone with an interest
in the weather or climate and an approved place of deposit for
meteorological information under the public records Act (1958).
[...] There is also a legal requirement handed down to the Public
Weather Service from the Lord Chancellor's office to archive meteorological
data on behalf of the UK Public.[207]

We heard contrasting views on how well the Met Office
is meeting its requirement to provide public access to library
services and to historical data. Among those who thought the Met
Office was doing well were Research Councils UK and the National
Oceanography Centre;[208]
while the Committee on Climate Change and others appeared to be
less satisfied with the current arrangements for accessing data
from the Met Office.[209]
Issues raised by the latter group included that the Met Office
charges heavily for access to electronic records and that while
some older records are available in paper form for photocopying,
this was not the case for more recent data, which often originated
in digital format.[210]
Nick Baldwin, Chair of the PWSCG, told us that the Met Office
was looking at ways in which to expand the data that were publicly
available but that this needed to be done in a cost-effective
way.[211] Mr Hirst
added that the Met Office tried to address every specific request
or issue that was raised with it on data accessibility.[212]
In order to gather views on how historical data could best be
provided online, we heard that the Royal Meteorological Society
and the Met Office were running a consultation with the wider
community.[213] It
was also suggested during the course of this inquiry that the
Met Office could learn from other countriesincluding the
United States and Australiawhere data were considered to
be more freely accessible.[214]

58. We heard from a number of witnesses that
freeing up access to data might help to grow a more vibrant private
sector that could, for example, develop specialist weather and
climate services.[215]
This view was shared by the Minister.[216]
Driving innovation and growth by freeing up public data is one
of the main aims of the Government's plans for a Public Data Corporation
(PDC).[217] The Met
Office has been consulted by the Government on the development
of the PDC.[218] Further
details on the PDC were outlined following the 2011 Autumn Statement
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Government announced
that it would establish a Data Strategy Board and a Public Data
Group that would "maximise the value of the data from the
Met Office" and other organisations. The Government stated
that the release of Met Office data under the Open Government
Licence represented "the largest volume of high quality weather
data and information made available by a national meteorological
organisation anywhere in the world".[219]
However, the possibility of the PDC adding "an unnecessary
and unhelpful level of bureaucracy" was raised by Professor
Hardaker, from the Royal Meteorological Society, as a potential
problem.[220]

59. We note that there are contrasting
views on how easy it is to gain free access to Met Office data.
While we take some reassurance from the fact that the Met Office
tries to address specific concerns about this as and when they
arise, we consider that the current consultation in collaboration
with the Royal Meteorological Society on access to data should
help the Met Office to deal with the problem in a more strategic
manner. We recommend that the Met Office also look to other countries
for best practice on making data more freely available. Alongside
this, we welcome the Government's initiative under the Public
Data Corporation to make more Met Office data available to drive
innovation and growth. The Government should continue to work
with the Met Office to ensure that the new arrangements are effective
and do not add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy.

Collaboration and partnership

60. Throughout this report, we have touched on
the subject of collaboration between the Met Office and the wider
meteorology community, both in the UK and abroad. In this section
we look in more detail at the ways in which the Met Office collaborates
with the research base, with the Government and other public bodies,
and with international partners.

RESEARCH BASE

61. Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Chair of MOSAC,
told us that "collaboration in the UK was quite rocky 20
or 30 years ago" but that this had improved significantly.[221]
The Met Office now appears to be well connected to the research
base.[222] John Hirst,
Met Office Chief Executive, told us that a "head of [science]
partnerships" post had been created and that the Met Office
was acting on the need to collaborate.[223]
The Met Office stated that in 2010, its scientists served on 39
committees related to the UK research base and that representatives
of the UK research community were included on MOSAC and the Hadley
Centre SRG.[224] The
Met Office's Chief Scientist is also a member of the Natural Environment
Research Council's (NERC) council.[225]
The Met Office's science strategy recognises the importance of
collaboration and outlines the activities that the Met Office
will undertake.[226]

62. One activity we heard a lot about during
the course of our inquiry was the Joint Weather and Climate Research
Programme (JWCRP).[227]
The JWCRP is a joint programme between the Met Office and NERC
which aims "to ensure that the UK maintains and strengthens
its leading international position in weather and climate science".[228]
Professor John Pyle, Chair of the Hadley Centre SRG, told us that
while the intentions of JWCRP were "excellent", it would
be "foolish to underestimate some of the practical difficulties".[229]
He explained that such a collaboration, on an institutional level,
would "entail some loss of sovereignty [and] effective management
of joint programmes [would] be a challenge".[230]
He implied that progress with the JWCRP was understandably moving
slowly,[231] but that
a more strategic approach was now being taken.[232]
Other activities include the Met Office's work with NERC on the
cross-Government, cross-Research Council programme, Living with
Environmental Change,[233]
and its collaborative relationship with individual universities.[234]

63. The Government told us that it fully endorsed
the Met Office's proposal for stronger partnerships and collaboration;
however, it added that "the proposed science partnerships
should also include representation from government to provide
additional context to proposed research programmes".[235]
In response, Mr Hirst told us that he didn't understand the thoughts
behind this and that the Met Office needed to understand precisely
what these representatives would want to do.[236]
Professor Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief Scientist, noted that
the Met Office needed to be careful, particularly with its academic
partners, that this did not conflict with the Haldane principle
(the traditionally accepted view that detailed decisions on research
should be made by researchers, not government).[237]
The Haldane principle does not apply to research funded by the
Met Office; it does, however, apply to research that is funded
by the Research Councils.[238]
The JWCRP, for example, is jointly funded by the Met Office and
NERC. Government representation on the JWCRP might therefore be
questionable. We sought clarification from the Minister; he explained
that "the suggestion that the Government should be represented
on the science partnerships was, frankly, to ensure the links
between the Government and policy-relevant research and that any
potential research overlap is minimised" and added that he
did not believe there was a conflict with the Haldane principle.[239]
The Government subsequently wrote to us clarifying that it did
"not necessarily envisage Government representation in all
scientific collaborations engaged in by the Met Office" and
that where representation was desirable, it would most likely
be at the Chief Scientific Adviser or official level.[240]

64. We recommend that the Government
consult with the Met Office on the need for Government representation
on Met Office science partnerships. While such representation
may be desirable to ensure strong links between the Government
and policy-relevant research, care must be taken to ensure that
there is no conflict with the Haldane principleparticularly
where partnerships are co-funded by the Research Councils.

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC BODIES

65. The Met Office works with the Government
and public bodies to deliver the operational services required
by the public sector under a range of contracts (see paragraph
9). For example, under its Public Weather Service contract, the
Met Office produces severe weather warnings and works with the
emergency planning and responder communities (see Annex A). This
is an area in which it is especially important to have good coordination
with the Government and public bodies. Prospect told us that Met
Office links with the emergency responder community had "greatly
improved" in recent years. As a result, the Met Office has
a better understanding of "how improved forecasts and warnings
can help to mitigate some of the impacts from severe weather".[241]
The Government added that "the Met Office [had] also developed
the 'traffic light' system of four colours which highlights the
weather maps and advisories it sends out. This simple system alerts
emergency planners and the public to the level of risk and certainty
of the weather event".[242]

66. A good example of effective collaboration
that was raised by a number of witnesses was the Flood Forecasting
Centre (FFC), which is a partnership between the Met Office and
the Environment Agency, staffed by members of both organisations.
The FFC was set up in 2009 following the report by Sir Michael
Pitt, Learning lessons from the 2007 floods, known as the
"Pitt Review", which recommended that the "Environment
Agency and Met Office should work together, through a joint centre,
to improve their technical capability to forecast, model and warn
against all sources of flooding".[243]
Professor Paul Hardaker, from the Royal Meteorological Society,
told us that it was important for the Met Office to be effectively
joined up with other agencies that were involved in issuing warnings.[244]
The Government stated that the 'traffic light' system "is
now used across all early warnings distributed by the Met Office,
Flood Forecasting Centre and Environment Agency".[245]
Professor Hardaker considered that while it was still "early
days", the FFC appeared to be working well.[246]
Mr Hirst told us that the Cumbrian floods occurred just after
the FFC had been established and as a result, the Met Office and
Environment Agency "were able to give 24 hours' better notice
than we had ever been able to do for a level of rainfall that
was beyond any historic record of rainfall in this country".[247]
Other examples of collaboration include the relationship of the
Met Office with the aviation industry to improve the understanding
of the spread and effect of volcanic ash,[248]
and with the Highways Agency on the impact of weather on the road
network.[249] A number
of other examples were given by the Government in its submission.[250]

67. Following the success of the FFC in providing
joined up scientific advice to Government and emergency responders
and in recognition of the need for a similar approach to other
potential natural hazards, the Met Office has set up the Natural
Hazards Partnership (NHP).[251]
The NHP brings together thirteen collaborative government agencies
to coordinate advice through a single contact point.[252]
Within a year of being established, the NHP has "piloted
a multi-hazards
warning service and the expertise is being integrated into the
Cabinet Office National Risk Assessment process to ensure the
best use of scientific evidence in planning and preparing for
natural hazard events".[253]

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS

68. In order to achieve the scientific advances
required to improve weather and climate services, it is important
to collaborate both nationally and internationally.[254]
International collaboration is particularly important "to
provide the observations on which the Met Office depends"
(see paragraph 28).[255]
The Met Office represents the UK in the European Organisation
for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT),
a collaboration that funds and operates a coordinated satellite
network, which provides weather and climate data 24 hours a day,
365 days a year.[256]
There are also "intergovernmental arrangements" between
Europe and other countries, "for the real time exchange of
weather and climate related satellite data".[257]
While there are clear advantages in sharing the cost of obtaining
satellite data, there are also some problems with relying on international
partners for crucial meteorological observations. For example,
on 24 October 2011, the Guardian reported that budget cuts
in the United States Congress could affect a "critical weather
satellite" that is relied upon by the Met Office and other
national meteorological services around the world.[258]
When we asked the Minister about the extent to which the UK Government
could influence its international counterparts in such a situation,
he responded:

I am not sure whether it is a question of Ministers
phoning their counterparts and having strong discussions; it is
more a question of ensuring that strong collaboration and co-operation
across the globe is maintained. We certainly recognise that various
Governments are under many cost pressures. The best way to apply
pressure is to work together through those cost pressures and
to understand their longer-term implications.[259]

We also asked how the specific problem highlighted
in the Guardian article was being dealt with. The Minister
was initially uncertain about the discussions occurring between
the UK and the United States, but was eventually able to clarify
that Mr Hirst was in discussions with his American counterpart
and that exchanges were not taking place at a Ministerial level.[260]
The Government also later added in a supplementary memorandum
to us that "this is a US political issue and therefore Ministerial
involvement is unlikely to be of assistance at this time, however
support has been offered to Mr Hirst on this matter should the
situation change".[261]

69. Beyond EUMETSAT, there are also close links
between the Met Office and Europe through the European Centre
for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), a part of the "European
Meteorological Infrastructure", which coordinates meteorological
activities in Europe.[262]
The Met Office is one of 19 Member States of the ECMWF.[263]
The ECMWF provides a "complementary" service to the
Met Office as it looks at longer-range forecasts.[264]
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Chair of MOSAC, told us that MOSAC
had called for the Met Office to improve its collaboration strategy
with the ECMWF and that there were now moves in that direction.[265]
While there is no mention of the ECMWF in the Met Office's science
strategy, we note that it is referred to in the science strategy
implementation plan.[266]

70. The Met Office also represents UK interests
at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).[267]
The Met Office plays an "active role" in the WMO and
"participates in a number of the WMO Commissions and Working
Groups".[268]
For example, Met Office scientists are actively engaged with the
WMO's World Climate Research Programme, World Weather Research
Programme and The Observing System Research and Predictability
Experiment (THORPEX).[269]
The WMO is also used as a forum in which to discuss collaboration
on severe weather events, such as space weather.[270]

71. As previously discussed, the Met Office also
collaborates with international partners on modelling: specifically,
by developing and testing its Unified Model with those countries
using it under licence (see paragraph 32). Amongst those working
with the Met Office in this way is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
The Bureau told us that "based on several years of experience,
the Met Office is very well planned, efficient and effective in
the way it structures and manages its side of the relationship".[271]

72. The Met Office collaborates well with a number
of partners, both in the UK and internationally, to improve the
accuracy of its modelling and predictions, and also to enhance
the effectiveness of its advice to responders dealing with severe
weather events. The Met Office is well respected internationally
and it was able to provide us with a number of examples of how
its work is feeding through to improved services.